Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 00:22 Europe/Berlin, Jeff Lowery wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I clearly misunderstood. What were you proposing a registry
> Namespace short-string identifier registry. I did use the word
> but in the sense that these identifiers would be prepended to local
> They're not stubs for full namespace IDs, they are the IDs.
what is to prevent a serializer from following the convention that all
namespace names must be url and all prefixes must be identical with the
authority component of the respective url. if a required prefix is
missing it puts a binding in. if that would lead to duplication, that
is a fatal error. if a prefix binding is present it enforces the
there is already a registry for such things, so just following such a
convention eliminates the "problem".
> The reason they're short is so that they can be used for prefixing.
> Such ID
> prefixes would be mandatory, to eliminate scoping issues. They'd be
> used for
> both attribute and element names, and namespaces in content.
> Perhaps I'm just stubborn or ignorant for thinking that namespace
> issues are the fundamental processing problem for XML.
those issues are fundamental exactly in the sense that entity expansion
is a fundamental problem. they remain a problem only if one insists on
processing xml as text rather than insisting on a parser which produces
an adequate document model.
> Forcing namespaces in
> root, as you suggest, do simplify scoping considerably. Still
> presents a
> problem for brain-dead cut & paste operations, though,
"brain-dead". your characterization.